<p>Tourguide - If we lowered the bar, that would mean we would admit people who can't handle the work/graduate...No highly selective college would ever do that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Artificially reducing the stats of certain applicants? What is the source to that claim? You mean like some posters who discount some of the factors that are used in a holistic admissions process like essays, recs, special talents, legacy status, gender, ethnicity, income, and geography?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I mean one parent who misunderstood the Chung and Espenshade study and supported taking 50 points off the SAT scores of Asian applicants. I mean another parent who refused to answer my question when I asked her whether she supported such a policy. And, I mean yet another parent who believes that non-Blacks in this nation should be punished for historical sins (the other two parents have expressed support for his belief).</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I mean one parent who misunderstood the Chung and Espenshade study and supported taking 50 points off the SAT scores of Asian applicants. I mean another parent who refused to answer my question when I asked her whether she supported such a policy. And, I mean yet another parent who believes that non-Blacks in this nation should be punished for historical sins (the other two parents have expressed support for his belief).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are many other who would disagree, or support the use of ethnicity as a factor that also would say something different. See AdOfficer's post above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Diversity can be obtained without using race as a factor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It can also be done without test scores. See Mt. Holyoke, Lawrence, Bowdoin, Bates, Holy Cross, Dickinson, Gettysburg, F & M, Hamilton, Knox, Wheaton (MA), Pitzer, et al. Again, definitional.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Drs. Bowek and Bok state that they're against quotas but for race-sensitive admissions. Which means that they're actually for the idea of quotas, they just don't use the word.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quota's as used in college admissions discussions mean a fix number, which both Bowen and Bok do not advocate. The 10% rule is a fixed number, which is a quota. See earlier post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I certainly do not see the need to use race as a factor to create "diversity." I certainly do not see the need to use race as a factor to correct for past oppression. Two wrongs do not make a right.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not surprised by your stance on ethnicity, since you believe that Asians are hurt by it. And, I'm not surpirsed that since Asians statistically perform somewhat well with respect to stats, that you would not see correction to past oppression as a goal. Rather than advocate for holistic admissions and diversity to minimize inequity that may be present in an applicant's background--that is looking at an applicant's history, special talents developed in context to the area they live in, economic conditions (which are, in part, impacted by ethnicity) etc..., more inequity is created by not considering other factors. So, two wrongs do not make right?! Your position would result in the same issue. Again, good debate technique.</p>
<p>Again, it is definitional. Considering ethnicity is a non-issue for some Asians because such a stance benefits the group (primarily East Asians, rather than Southeast Asians) in selective college admissions. On another note, even though Native Hawaiian's are genetically traceable to China (making them East Asian-ish), Kamehameha Schools admissions program "corrects" for the wholesale decimation of many Hawaiians by white missonaries from the East Coast (who introduced diseases, over threw a sovreign govermnet with the help of the US, took common lands, etc...). The Federal Courts define what is and is not acceptable legally through it's decisions. So, even they recognize that ethnic groups can be oppressed by the actions of the majority, that have long lasting effect to those that were marginalized.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The whole idea of promoting diversity by using race as a factor leads to quotas by other names.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Supreme Court bars quotas, but some states have them in terms of the 10% rule (and they are based on stats). Perhaps, that should be revisited? Synonym for the term 'quota' do not mean that they have the same definition. That is why some use 'race', rather than 'ethnicity'. Ethnicity is but one of many factors in a holistic approach to admissions. You could argue to exclude any one of them. Definitional.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dr. Sowell has stated in his book Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, that blacks at MIT have SAT scores that place them in the Top 10% nation-wide. Certainly, they are good students. But, under whose benchmark? The nation or MIT? At MIT, their scores placed them at the Bottom 10%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT sets the benchmark, as is their right as a private university. And, in any given applicant pool, there will be a bottom decile as well as a top decile. That is why most schools report a range, rather than a mean score--like they used to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are many other who would disagree, or support the use of ethnicity as a factor that also would say something different. See AdOfficer's post above.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most in our nation do not support race as a factor.</p>
<p>The ones that do either do so for political correctness or for self-atonement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It can also be done without test scores. See Mt. Holyoke, Lawrence, Bowdoin, Bates, Holy Cross, Dickinson, Gettysburg, F & M, Hamilton, Knox, Wheaton (MA), Pitzer, et al. Again, definitional.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure those schools use race as a factor...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rather than advocate for holistic admissions and diversity to minimize inequity that may be present in an applicant's background--that is looking at an applicant's history, special talents developed in context to the area they live in, economic conditions (which are, in part, impacted by ethnicity) etc..., more inequity is created by not considering other factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can look at an applicant's history, any talents he developed, and his residence without looking at his race.</p>
<p>And, two wrongs do not make a right. We will not create a more equitable society by preferring some over others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Supreme Court bars quotas, but some states have them in terms of the 10% rule (and they are based on stats). Perhaps, that should be revisited? Synonym for the term 'quota' do not mean that they have the same definition. That is why some use 'race', rather than 'ethnicity'. Ethnicity is but one of many factors in a holistic approach to admissions. You could argue to exclude any one of them. Definitional.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whether they have the exact same definition is completely irrelevant. What is important is the effect - preferential treatment for some and not for others. How is this supposed to rectify inequity?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most in our nation do not support race as a factor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's right, the MAJORITY has power to define the norm. Fortunately, the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts have defined the use of ethnicity as an avenue to diversity in college admissions. That attempts to minimize transgressions against minorities by those in power.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The ones that do either do so for political correctness or for self-atonement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Source? That is an assumtion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can look at an applicant's history, any talents he developed, and his residence without looking at his race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You could. But, adcoms will not get a full picture, which they need--as much as possible during a holistic process--when choosing a class from qualified applicants. It is a definitional. You want ethnicity to not be considered, while others want test scores not to count. Presonally, I think test scores have their place--only if ethnicity, gender, income, etc...are considered. Otherwise, test scores don't do much, as least for me. See, it's a matter of how one defines the issue, no matter what "side" you fall on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, two wrongs do not make a right. We will not create a more equitable society by preferring some over others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then, the problem is the competitive and selective college admissions process. Ignoring social, historic, and economic conditions (and it's related ethnicity and gender marginalization by the majority) does not set things right. It creates inequity as well--which is still wrong. It's a matter of degree. We're arguing about a definition of what is "less" inequitable. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Whether they have the exact same definition is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is not irrelevant in a court of law. See article above, and Supreme Court decision in the UMichigan case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is important is the effect - preferential treatment for some and not for others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, it seems like you have a problem with the selective college process, which does make chocies between applicants. That is, they prefer a mix of kids, that are influenced by institional and social needs. Luckily, as AdOfficer pointed out in his post, the adcoms are aware of the issue and use a holitic process that considers the whole individual as much as possible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is this supposed to rectify inequity?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In competitive college admissions, it can't solve the problem completely, since the issue is how the majority can, if it chooses to, enforce a norm, whether socially, economically, or politically at the pre-college level. Without minimal protection from the majority--considerations of gender, ethnicity, region, et. al--inequity in selective college admissions would be the norm. Thus, a holistic approach is more desirable than one that considers fewer factors in the admissions process. Being non-competitive would solve the problem, but I don't think that many want that. Status, presitge, et. al. still are prized by many...in addition to a good education.</p>
<p>I believe Adcom on this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In admissions committee and in reading files, we don't really "lower the bar" for "hooked" students - even legacies and athletes. Every student is evaluated based on the context within which they have achieved inside AND outside the classroom. That's what affirmative action protects - the right of different social institutions to include people who have been disadvantaged in different ways or who have achieved in different ways that could benefit the institution. Keep in mind that NO ONE is admitted to highly selective colleges if they can't do the work. Also keep in mind that, academically, the vast majority of students applying to highly selective institutions CAN DO THE WORK. Indeed, your 1450/2200+ SATs and 4.0+ GPAs are not that special in a national applicant pool at highly selective schools. And even if they were, it doesn't mean you'll add anything to the life of the particular campuses you're applying to in the eyes of the institution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, I mean yet another parent who believes that non-Blacks in this nation should be punished for historical sinsâŠ
[/quote]
Perhaps you are referring to my beliefs on this issue. If you are, then you are grossly misrepresenting me.</p>
<p>I believe as AdOfficer has posted, especially when he/she says stuff like this:</p>
<p>Many students face prejudice, racism, and classism in their schools, a lack of a stable family life, a lack of good teachers or role models, etc..., and still share the same desire to learn as those who have not faced any of these things. Thus, we have to be as objective as possible in evaluating each student and their achievements. To do this, we have to consider the opportunities each student has - or has not - had and the obstacles they have faced in achieving what they have (or have not) achieved. To deny students access to elite institutions because they don't "measure up" in quantifiable ways like others who have been privileged is, well, unethical in my opinion and perpetuates the inequalities that exist in our culture.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I certainly do not see the need to use race as a factor to create "diversity." I certainly do not see the need to use race as a factor to correct for past oppression. Two wrongs do not make a right.
[/quote]
LOL. You know, this just kinda makes me laugh because it reminds me of just how sincerely closed minded we can be when we look myopically to our own hurts and wishes. I think those who point to the problems with AA have some legitimate issues that ought to be considered. I have always admitted this. But many of you "donât see any need" beyond what you see because your interests are focused too narrowly, in my opinion.</p>
<p>It is as if you and I enter an emergency room. You walked in first holding up a bleeding finger. I came in a little later on a stretcher. The doctors rush in, and seeing my legs laying one on top of the other next to the rest of my body, they start working frantically to get me stable. As they work, you keep interrupting them while holding up your hurt finger saying âWhatâs this? Not fair! First come, first served!â</p>
<p>You would have a fine point if the first wrong you are talking about was over and we were all sitting here as one people. Unfortunately that is not the case. We arenât dealing here with TWO wrongs because the first wrong is still underway. It never ended. AA is not a wrong that is being issued to create a right. It can never do this anyway because the first wrong was so heinous and devastating. All AA is is triage. It is just one little thing that when combined with many other things can help stabilize a patient who has suffered a monstrously wicked injury.</p>
<p>No one is doing it out of guilt. There is no room for guilt here because no one alive today has caused the problem. It is a matter of our governmentâs duty to a segment of its population that it has harmed for almost all of that segment's time in this country. It is a matter of history. It is also a matter of compassion, and of a desire to do something about the mess we are in.</p>
<p>Given the grade curve at most selective colleges, simply graduating is a pretty miminal accomplishment. There are enough highly qualified applicants that most of these schools fill their classes with students who are virtually certain to end up with a B+ average; letting in an athlete who is likely to get B-'s (the current equivalent of the gentleman's C or D) is indeed "lowering the bar" when compared to criteria that give less weight to non-academic factors. This doesn't say what the right criteria are, but personally I would like to see elite institutions give less (but still positive) weight to athletic accomplishments and egacy status.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is so racist. It made me cry. I hate being Asian.
[/quote]
You hate being Asian because of what someone says about you. Were you black youÂd obviously kill yourself. CÂmon now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are Asian and push yourself towards a nonstereotypical major like Classics or Egyptology or English, you stand out more than the other Asians who flow towards the sciences and math.
[/quote]
I think yall are really missing the point here. If it is true that a lot of Asian parents are leaning hard on their kids to be such and such (and it seems to be true)âŠ</p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=124176%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=124176</a>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=231644%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=231644</a>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=224815%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=224815</a>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=166590%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=166590</a></p>
<p>then you likely have a lot of Asian kids who are pleasing mom and dad, but who are not chasing their dreams. When an admissions officer sees this coming across his desk by the tens of thousands, it just HAS to stick out like a sore thumb (because you just can't fake love and passion). This is not stereotyping in the malicious sense. It is merely a comment on an obvious trend. It has been said here that such a thing does not take place where blacks are concerned, but that is just not true, and were you folks blacks you would know it. We commonly read things like âblack parents very often fail to care for their childrenâ, and âblack children are very often fatherlessâ, âblack males have a <strong>% greater chance of dying of a gunshot wound than __</strong> malesâ etc., etc. The reason we see these things are not always because the person saying them wishes to be malicious. In many cases he is just reporting a trend. Where Asians are concerned, the stereotype is not nearly as ugly.</p>
<p>The other thing is, if you deliberately avoid sciences and math so that you can stick out from the crowd, you are likely just doing to yourselves what many Asian parents appear to be doing to their kids. I think it is important for you to do what you really want to do. Just make sure you really go for it with your whole heart. Itâll work out, though mom and dad might have a cow (and a few sheep, and throw in a coupla three pigs...)</p>
<p>So much for keeping things from turning into mud slinging...yet again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps you are referring to my beliefs on this issue. If you are, then you are grossly misrepresenting me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I was.</p>
<p>I apologize if I am grossly misrepresenting your views, but I think you've made it clear in the other thread that you think race should be a factor because it's a factor everywhere else and blacks deserve reparations via the punishment of non-Blacks for the sins of slavery and segregation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is as if you and I enter an emergency room. You walked in first holding up a bleeding finger. I came in a little later on a stretcher. The doctors rush in, and seeing my legs laying one on top of the other next to the rest of my body, they start working frantically to get me stable. As they work, you keep interrupting them while holding up your hurt finger saying âWhatâs this? Not fair! First come, first served!â
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see how that is an appropriate comparison at all. First off, if that actually happened, I would sit down and wait since your injury would be far more serious than mine.</p>
<p>A better example would be as follows:</p>
<p>We both enter an emergency room. I am first wheeled in with my legs detached from my body. You are wheeled in after me with the same condition. You are picked first because preference must be given to those who suffered from slavery and segregation.</p>
<p>I believe that this example accounts for the views you have previously expressed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one is doing it out of guilt. There is no room for guilt here because no one alive today has caused the problem. It is a matter of our governmentâs duty to a segment of its population that it has harmed for almost all of that segment's time in this country. It is a matter of history. It is also a matter of compassion, and of a desire to do something about the mess we are in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Given the views of some parents here, I highly contest âno one is doing it out of guilt.â</p>
<p>The government should not prefer some over others on the basis of their race.</p>
<p>Punishing non-Blacks in this nation for historical grievances does good to no one.</p>
<p>i have a question about this issue. Most people say that since colleges are a private institution, they have a right to do whatever they want. My question is, are there any federal regulations or involvment involving colleges? For example a university needs a liscense to be considered a university(this might not be true as i just made it up, but is just an example).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, I was. I apologize if I am grossly misrepresenting your views, but I think you've made it clear in the other thread that you think race should be a factor because it's a factor everywhere else and blacks deserve reparations via the punishment of non-Blacks for the sins of slavery and segregation.
[/quote]
Well that is a far cry from my claiming non-blacks should be âpunishedâ for slavery. You have simply taken my perspective, which admittedly is subject to debate, and then created an intellectual abortion with it. It is like my claiming that you claim blacks ought to be continually oppressed because you reject Affirmative Action. This sort of fallaciousness does me a great dishonor. If you wish to disagree with my view, then it is fine. I welcome it. But I think you at least ought to have the decency to disagree with my view, and not a bitter corruption of it.
[quote]
I don't see how that is an appropriate comparison at all. First off, if that actually happened, I would sit down and wait since your injury would be far more serious than mine. A better example would be as follows: We both enter an emergency room. I am first wheeled in with my legs detached from my body. You are wheeled in after me with the same condition. You are picked first because preference must be given to those who suffered from slavery and segregation. I believe that this example accounts for the views you have previously expressed.
[/quote]
Of course you do. And that is why this debate rages as it does. We are unable to see the larger issues involved, I think chiefly because we are ignorant of history. That ignorance permits us to judge that others are in the âsame conditionâ as we are when in fact we donât have the credentials to make the claim and are not interested in ever having the credentials. We simply want to make the claim because it supports our own desires and not the broader truth around us.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Given the views of some parents here, I highly contest âno one is doing it out of guilt.â
[/quote]
Well I would like to see the evidence of this guilt. It is quite possible, and perhaps very likely, you are mistaking compassion for guilt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The government should not prefer some over others on the basis of their race.
[/quote]
Yet that is what the government has done against blacks from 1619 well into the 1970âs. For this reason society is built such that preferences for others, against blacks, persist to this day, leaving blacks essentially outside of what it means to be American. It has an obligation to act toward blacks in a way opposite of how it has acted since blacks have been here. It has this obligation because it took from blacks something that no group should lose.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Punishing non-Blacks in this nation for historical grievances does good to no one.
[/quote]
It is no punishment to anyone to see a black guy who is qualified and then choose him for his abilities especially in view of the historical fact that his race provokes more difficulty for his kind than for everyone else. No one is âpunishedâ here at all.</p>
<p>This has really turned into a pretty nasty showing of A LOT of ignorance. You guys really, REALLY have a lot to learn. </p>
<p>First of all, I'd like to comment on Fabrizio's comments a few posts ago...You have been very selective in the way you have taken the data from Bowen and Bok and Sowell and used it to really misrepresent a lot of what these folks were saying. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you've taken their findings way out of context to prove your point which, quite frankly, is weak. Have you actually read these folks' research? I find it interesting that you focus your arguments around stats - particularly the SAT - yet in citing Bowen and Bok, for example, you don't mention that they - like so many other educational researchers - are very clear in mentioning that using the SAT as an "indicator" of college success or achievement is severely limiting 1) because the test is biased (for several reasons - the language used and the way questions are asked or phrased are not culturally relevant to a lot of test-takers; sites where the testing is administered are often predominantly white high schools and not necessarily "comfortable" for non-white students; it costs money) and 2) the test does not necessarily measure anything but analytical skills. Many respected researchers - Robert Sternberg, Howard Gardner, David Perkins, and Robert Shank, to name a few - have come up with some very interesting findings that suggest not only do these tests only measure analytical skills, but also that they ignore other valuable types of intelligence which are needed for college success - like experiential intelligence, practical intellligence, experimental intelligence, reflective intelligence, and componential intelligence. Interestingly, their findings also indicate that these forms of intelligence tend to be better indicators of college success for URMs than simple analytical tests like the SAT. Bowen and Bok also mention that the only reason why they use SAT points to "equate" the effects of affirmative action on admit decisions for non-URMs is because there are no other quantifiable tools so widely-used as the SAT - not because they have any faith in it. They are, on the contrary, very quick to point out that the SAT is severely limited in its ability to predict college success for any population. In addition, they are very quick to also point out that these test aren't terribly good indicators of achievement because, as we all know, you can actually study or prep for them (if you have the money).</p>
<p>A friendly word of advice...it is NEVER a good idea to put words in others' mouths - especially when those others are older, wiser, more educated, and respected than you are. As someone who has studied Bowen and Bok's work for years, has been educated by them, who knows them, and as someone who has worked with them and their respected colleagues, I feel confident in saying Fabrizio's assertion that "Drs. Bowe[n] and Bok state that they're against quotas but for race-sensitive admissions. Which means that they're actually for the idea of quotas, they just don't use the word." would seriously offend them, academically, professionally, and personally. Just so we are all on the same page here folks, quotas - at least in college admissions - are predetermined, reserved spots in a class used for enrollment of a particular group of students based on some kind of defining characteristic. In this way, quotas are discriminatory. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE DO NOT USE QUOTAS IN HIGHER EDUCATION! Affirmative action in college admissions IN NO WAY USES PREDETERMINED SLOTS FOR ENROLLMENT PURPOSES, not only because it is illegal, but also because most of us working in selective admissions think it's unethical. Instead, affirmative action allows us to consider things like race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexuality, etc..., in order to holistically understand the context within which a student has achieved what they have when we make our decisions. If you have read "The Shape of the River" or Dr. Bowen's or Dr. Bok's other works FRONT TO BACK, you'd know this and be hard pressed to make some of the assumptions you are making here. In addition, I find it fascinating that Fabrizio used their works to support his/her point about the unfairness of affirmative action, yet failed to mention Bowen and Bok's finding that the effect of affirmative action on non-URM applicants to selective colleges is actually statistically insignificant, to the point where almost 98% of those non-URM students rejected by these colleges would still be rejected by these colleges if affirmative action did not exist. Do your homework. And instead of making assumptions, listen to what admissions folks are saying to you all: one's race does not determine what letter one will receive in April!!!! It is not, as Fabrizio and others seems to assume, a zero sum game. </p>
<p>A final word about your posts Fabrizio - those of us who support affirmative action do not "do so for political correctness or for self-atonement." I, for one, have nothing to atone for. However, as a caucasian male, I certainly am aware of the privilege I have had during my life, regardless of the fact that I have NEVER been financially privileged (my parents immigrated here and lord knows admissions doesn't pay!) nor did I have access to good secondary education. However, I do believe that - as a professional working in higher education - I need to be well aware of issues that impede social justice and educational attainment. And that's what affirmative action is about - social justice. Someone mentioned that two wrongs don't make a right...please tell me how ignoring the inequalities that exist in our educational system - which are perpetuated by and reflected in the inequalities that exist in our society - makes anything right! Affirmative action lets us make sure those inequalities are not ignored. If you truly believe that we live in a meritocracy and that URMs no longer face discrimination in schools, you are misguided. And again, if you truly believe that we in admissions offices decide to admit certain students solely because of their race, then you are doubly misguided!</p>
<p>IsleBoy - I do agree with you that we can achieve diversity without standardized testing, but I have to say that many of the schools that are "testing optional" aren't terribly racially diverse...however, I know several folks who work at these schools and you can rest assured that they are committed to changing that!</p>
<p>BDEAN - again, like Fabrizio, you need to check your "facts". Your comments about "elite WASPs" and Jews are grossly off base. There are Jews, for example, all over the world, including in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America, and Central America. And "elite WASPs" aren't as numerous as you imply...You are confusing race ("Asian" or "Jewish") with ethnicity in your comments ("Asians are a much more varied group than Jews") . Also, I think you really need to take a look at why historically there are "so many" Jews in our "elite" institutions today before you start making judgements about it. Because of their systematic exclusion from almost every other part of society, Jews entered American higher education at the turn of the 20th Century in huge numbers because that was really the only avenue they had to be socially mobile (I'll give you a bibliography later...). You also should take a look at the historical exclusion - and I mean blatant, racist exclusion - of Jews, blacks, and Latinos, in our nation's most revered institutions as recently as the 1960s and 1970s (that is not that far back guys!) and really try and understand just how many generations of these people were denied opportunities before you start bringing it up in a conversation as heavy as this one. Read Jerome Karabel's "The Chosen" or Marcia Synnott's "The Half-Opened Door" (or even my thesis!) and then think hard about the comments you've made. In addition, you need to be very careful about throwing out any percentages related to religious affiliations of college students because, this day in age, very few schools ask about a student's religious preferences on an application and are thus unable to report reliable statistics. And finally yes, many times, we in admissions can look at an application and tell "what type of Asian" (do people say that bdean?) a student is: usually Asian-American students will disclose this in essays, extracurriculars, etc..., will indicate it on the Common Application, etc..., or, dare I say we, being the intelligent people that we are, and being diverse as we are in the field of admissions, can tell a Korean name, for example, from a Vietnamese one (just an example).</p>
<p>I'm really excited that you all have taken such an interest in this topic, and as an admissions officer, I hear your concerns. But it's clear from a lot of these posts that - despite your knowledge of some research in the field of higher education access - you need to do more reading about it. A lot of you also need to stop making assumptions about what goes on in admissions offices! I'm impressed by all of the passion you guys seem to have, but stop taking this personally because, at the end of the day, affirmative action policies have a very, VERY limited effect on non-URMs in selective college admissions. I say that as an admissions officer at a highly selective school, as someone with an advanced degree in this area, and as someone who truly believes that there is still too much inequality in this country between races.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well that is a far cry from my claiming non-blacks should be Âpunished for slavery. You have simply taken my perspective, which admittedly is subject to debate, and then created an intellectual abortion with it. It is like my claiming that you claim blacks ought to be continually oppressed because you reject Affirmative Action. This sort of fallaciousness does me a great dishonor. If you wish to disagree with my view, then it is fine. I welcome it. But I think you at least ought to have the decency to disagree with my view, and not a bitter corruption of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Took me a while, but post #470 in the "Princeton answers..." thread:</p>
<p>Indeed, if they [African immigrants] come here, they are assuming AmericaÂs debts.</p>
<p>Actually, I have to rephrase. I interpret your posts to suggest that non-"African Americans" should be punished in this nation for slavery and segregation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course you do. And that is why this debate rages as it does. We are unable to see the larger issues involved, I think chiefly because we are ignorant of history. That ignorance permits us to judge that others are in the Âsame condition as we are when in fact we donÂt have a clue about their condition and are not interested in ever having a clue about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I most certainly do not have any idea what the life of an inner-city youth is. I do know, however, that giving some people preferences on the basis of their skin colors does them no good in the long run.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well I would like to see the evidence of this guilt. It is quite possible, and perhaps very likely, you are mistaking compassion for guilt.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I had a long private discussion with cheers about this. If she still has the private messages, you can ask her.</p>
<p>I don't see how supporting the idea of adding 220 points to the SAT scores of Blacks while simultaneously removing 50 SAT points from Asians can be construed as "compassion."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet that is what the government has done against blacks from 1619 well into the 1970Âs. For this reason society is built such that preferences for others, against blacks, persist to this day, leaving blacks essentially outside of what it means to be American. It has an obligation to act toward blacks in a way opposite of how it has acted since blacks have been here. It has this obligation because it took from blacks something that no group should lose.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're essentially advocating for the continuation of a policy that is wrong. The only difference is that you want this policy to benefit your group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is no punishment to anyone to see a black guy who is qualified and then choose him for his abilities especially in view of the historical fact that his race provokes more difficulty for his kind than for everyone else. No one is Âpunished here at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is CERTAINLY no punishment to choose a black for his abilities. If he's good, pick him. End of story.</p>
<p>I mean, if he's good, why should his race be considered? He's good, that's what matters. His race does not matter.</p>
<p>But, that's the thing. I'd pick him because he has shown that he has the potential to achieve more. It's all there in the numbers, the essays, the recommendations, everything. The fact that he's Black doesn't change anything. You'd pick him because he's Black and therefore must have suffered so much more than everyone else simply because of his skin color.</p>
<p>Thank you for that post, the discussion always seems to get away from us CCer's from time-to-time. Thank you for your insight.</p>
<p>Hopefully, we can cool down a bit...and keep the train on the tracks. :)</p>
<p>There it goes...</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>With all due respect, aside from your stronger statements, which I assume come from your occupation, you haven't really said anything that I haven't already read or previously encountered.</p>
<p>What the hell does "culturally relevant" mean, anyway? Do you mean ebonics? Dialects? Vernaculars? What do you mean? I'm sorry, but I've lived in three different states in two different geographic areas of our nation, and I was always taught to conjugate my verbs as correctly as possible and to finish my sentences with complete words. If that's not "culturally relevant," then I guess I should complain to my old teachers that they taught me incorrectly.</p>
<p>And, I hate the "he hired a tutor" argument against the SAT. How many students hire tutors from Kaplan, PR, and so forth anyway? Do you know? I will say that I disagree with CB's fee waiver policy. I think it's not aggressive enough and needs to be changed. Four waivers isn't enough. That's a real problem. The "he hired a tutor" excuse is bogus.</p>
<p>You can take into account all those intelligences without looking at race. Last time I checked, a man's brain was located in his head, not his skin. Then again, biology textbooks are most frequently updated with new findings, so maybe a man's brain is located in his skin...</p>
<p>As far as your "friendly" word of advice goes, I'd like to emphasize that I respect Drs. Bowen and Bok as academicians. Their work, The Shape of the River, however, is political rather than academic. You'd think that they would have thought that a group consisting of Bryn Mawr, Duke, Princeton, Rice, Stanford, Swarthmore, Williams, and Yale and another group consisting of Denison, Miami of Ohio, Michigan (Ann Arbor), North Carolina (Chapel Hill), Penn State, and Tulane differed not only in average SAT scores but also size.</p>
<p>I do not view college admissions as zero sum. Everybody can win by attending a college he likes. Doesn't have to be THE college, it just has to be A college.</p>
<p>I never said that we live in a meritocracy NOW. I do, however, strongly believe in the idea of a meritocracy, and I believe that using race as a factor does nothing to advance this ideal. In addition, I have never said that "under-represented" minorities learn in discrimination-free schools. I have, however, repeatedly stated that I support the end of racial preferences.</p>
<p>Racial preferences are NOT the only way to address the inequalities that exist in our nation. I'll be damned if they are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Took me a while, but post #470 in the "Princeton answers..." thread: Indeed, if they [African immigrants] come here, they are assuming Americaâs debts.
[/quote]
You are taking the statement out of its larger context. I discussed this in post</a> 459 in that thread where I said in response to your question about why Asians should be âpunishedâ:</p>
<p>Were Asians here in 1619? No, they were not. They came here so much later, and as a group they entered essentially as entrepreneurs, selling either labor or some other ware for the potential of realizing profits. That simply does not apply to blacks, and it is what makes blacks unique. When you accept a business, you also accept its debt. Asians arenât being punished for anything. They arrived in a land of opportunity made possible by stealing millions of black bodies and crushing their souls over hundreds of years. Either those Asians, along with everyone else, are going to pay in a civilized fashion, or they are going to pay in an uncivilized fashion-- with things like 911 and worse. It is very clear to me that eventually, this country is going to pay its debt even if it has to kill itself to do it. Even if we murder every single black person in the nation to try to escape the debt, we will be left with a nation wherein no person will feel safe. There will be no such thing as reading the morning paper, taking a leisurely walk. The whole world will be against you, even if no one lifts a finger to stop you. There is no escaping what America owes by nature. No one is being punished simply because they arrived here seeking opportunity while also assuming the debt this country owes.</p>
<p>Once again, there is no punishment of Asians here. Something happened to blacks before Asians arrived, and it happened because of the authority of the colonial and American governments. It happened and even persists to this very day. That Something was the taking from blacks of their right to life, and liberty to pursue happiness. Their lives were taken, and for centuries so that now their descendants do not have either the cultural or even financial capital that all other groups here take for granted. America took this away, and it is now indebted to these people. This indebtedness is part of the overall economy governing this place. When an Asian or anyone else comes here, he has to take it into account, whether he wishes to accept the debt or not. I am saying that the debt is going to be paid whether we like it or not. Currently, it is being paid in anger, crime, depression, drugs, and a host of other things, many of which seem completely unrelated to slavery but that ultimately are quite a part of it. I advocate policies sensitive to race because I think those policies can perhaps over time help blacks gain for themselves what America stole from them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, I have to rephrase. I interpret your posts to suggest that non-"African Americans" should be punished in this nation for slavery and segregation.
[/quote]
Well that is not a rephrasing. You are simply corrupting my view by projecting on it your distaste for it. You ought not do this.
[quote]
I most certainly do not have any idea what the life of an inner-city youth is. I do know, however, that giving some people preferences on the basis of their skin colors does them no good in the long run.
[/quote]
If the preference is based purely on skin color then I think I would agree. But that is not what I advocate, and I have never advocated it.
[quote]
I had a long private discussion with cheers about this. If she still has the private messages, you can ask her.
[/quote]
Well, one data point of someone who you THINK feels guilt, does not an argument make. It ainât even a decent statement. You will need a lot more evidence than this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see how supporting the idea of adding 220 points to the SAT scores of Blacks while simultaneously removing 50 SAT points from Asians can be construed as "compassion."
[/quote]
Well, if you are talking about what I think you are talking about, you have really misinterpreted this study. If I recall, the point was to quantify the relative selection pressures on the various groups that apply for admission to a few select universities. It is not like a black guy comes in with a 1100 and those schools bump him to 1300.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're essentially advocating for the continuation of a policy that is wrong. The only difference is that you want this policy to benefit your group.
[/quote]
No. I want it to benefit Native Americans too, because America is specially indebted to that group too. And if Asians were veritably defined by the wholesale theft of their identity, I would certainly want to repay the debt to them. I would not do it out of any sense of guilt. I would want to do it because I would think it is the right thing to do. Actually, AA may not be the best way to do this. I have always expressed misgivings about it. I think it does more good than harm, but I am not certain about it. I do know this: we cannot put the burden of a ârace-blindâ society on the backs of those who have been the centuries long victims of a race-sensitive society. That will only add insult and further injury to injury.
[quote]
It is CERTAINLY no punishment to choose a black for his abilities. If he's good, pick him. End of story.
[/quote]
That is quite precisely what I think is happening in admissions. The blacks who are chosen are good. And so they are picked.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, if he's good, why should his race be considered? He's good, that's what matters. His race does not matter.
[/quote]
His race is critical because the very structure of society means that certain pressures against black educational success are going to be in place. Some of these pressures include âracism, and classism⊠a lack of a stable family life, a lack of good teachers or role models, etc...â. These pressures exist because of the historical attitudes and treatments of blacks, many of which persist to this day. It means we are not likely to get many blacks who meet the standard. It also means we are likely to get a virtual sea of people not as affected by these pressures who do meet the standard. If despite these pressures we get a few black guys who meets the standard, the odds are tremendous that those blacks are going to be overlooked in a race-blind process. The numbers are just against them. There is no harm in turning special attention toward those guys, especially when their race has had such a devastating effect on everything that they are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, that's the thing. I'd pick him because he has shown that he has the potential to achieve more. It's all there in the numbers, the essays, the recommendations, everything. The fact that he's Black doesn't change anything.
[/quote]
It changes everything because if he has the numbers, the essays, the recommendations, and he is black, it helps me know even better who and where he is so that I might select him. That black guy may be remarkable, quantitatively, but his recommendations may not be from, say, a senator because of his lack of connections. Knowing he is black helps put this in perspective, seeing as there are so few black senators in our government (due to history). </p>
<p>
[quote]
You'd pick him because he's Black and therefore must have suffered so much more than everyone else simply because of his skin color.
[/quote]
That is just not true. I have ALWAYS advocated that blacks be extraordinarily qualified before they even think of applying anywhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Either those Asians, along with everyone else, are going to pay in a civilized fashion, or they are going to pay in an uncivilized fashion-- with things like 911 and worse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That sounds A LOT like punishment to me. And, how is 9/11 in any way connected to American slavery and segregation?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, one data point of someone who you THINK feels guilt, does not an argument make. It ainÂt even a decent statement. You will need a lot more evidence than this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I admit that I cannot provide the evidence you seek.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if you are talking about what I think you are talking about, you have really misinterpreted this study. If I recall, the point was to quantify the relative selection pressures on the various groups that apply for admission to a few select university. It is not like a black guy comes in with a 1100 and those schools bump him to 1300.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why I highlighted the word idea in my sentence. One parent obviously misunderstood the simulated aspect of the Chung and Espenshade study. She then boldly proclaimed her support for such an idea.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is quite precisely what I think is happening in admissions. The blacks who are chosen are good. And so they are picked.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...except that race is factored in. Even as one of many factors, there's no point for it to be used.</p>
<p>When race is used as a factor, people are judged on the color of their skin. I'm against this.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, while I seriously disagree with some of your views, I don't have anything against you personally. I just don't think that we should make judgments based on race.</p>